Pros
Overall the employees are friendly, personable, and committed to doing a good job. Many times I've asked other managers (in contracts, finance, pricing, corporate communications, etc.) for help and they've jumped right in to do what it takes to get the job done (vs. "hiding in the bureaucracy," which is all too easy to do in a large organization). (GDAIS is a very process-oriented organization, so many tasks require these folks' involvement.) There was a long period where the company seemed to do little to promote staff development and learning, but that's changing in a very good way. They're beginning to carve out budgets for training, conferences, and the like. Last year (and again this year, in progress), they ran an extensive employee survey, and they reported out the results -- warts and all. My sense is that they're trying hard to take action based on what they've learned. (I suspect that the increased focus on training is due at least in part to this feedback.) Lou Von Thaer and others in upper management report out frequently in company- and division-wide "all hands" meetings. (Unfortunately, during these meetings they name all sorts of programs that the company is working, but which they can't talk about -- but that's the nature of the business, and not their fault.) Strong promotion of ethics and responsibility, which -- having worked previously for "ethically challenged" companies (not GDAIS) -- I really appreciate.
Cons
Like many large companies, GDAIS struggles to balance a need for process and repeatability, on one hand, with flexibility, on the other. At times the company's process-oriented focus can be quite limiting -- particularly in terms of encouraging innovation (especially internal process innovation). Management decisions (particularly regarding the allocation of resources, such as, for example, business development funds) often seem reactive, rather than thought-through and strategic. They're trying hard to change this, but it seems to be a real struggle. (There are things, however, like allocating more funds for training and staff development, where they do seem to be successfully taking a long-term strategic view.) They also seem unsure as to the degree to which they want to be a matrixed organization. Currently, most staff report to "engineering" (responsible for staff) vs. program management (responsible for programs). I think the success of this approach really depends on good communication between the individual engineering managers and PMs like myself. I've heard that this doesn't always work so well -- which can leave the staff sort of stuck in the middle, between two different "bosses."